I bet the lobbies will crank up activity on behalf of the broadcasters. If Aereo has won every hearing so far then surely SCOTUS has to take this into account, however there's also a matter of a carefully worded question on behalf of the broadcasters to consider.

The networks are doing it wrong. Just ask Aereo to track viewership, give the numbers their advertisers and make even more money. The only one stealing from the networks is the networks. They need to learn to recognize opportunity.

It's ridiculous the kind of hoops they had to jump through and the very very fine letter of the law they had to walk in order to succeed.

But in the end, they found pretty damn good loophole to squeeze through.Good for them.

It's about time the big TV companies realized that copyright law is a two-way street. They're just so used to getting whatever they want through money, influence, and buying laws.. but now Aereo is playing their game and winning.

The decision below has far-reaching adverse consequences for the broadcast television industry, making the need for this Court’s review urgent and acute. The decision already is having a transformative effect on the industry. Industry participants will not and cannot afford to wait for something of this magnitude to percolate before responding to new business realities. And once Aereo’s technology is entrenched and the industry has restructured itself in response, a ruling by this Court in Petitioners’ favor will come too late. The disruption threatened by Aereo will produce changes that will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse.

This was seriously written in the petition?

The SCOTUS is supposed to rule on the law, not the effect it will have on an industry's bottom line. But, alas, everyone loves an activist court.

However, I do certainly believe the broadcast industry when they say they would stop broadcasting and go cable/online only.ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, etc. too addicted to rebroadcast fees from the cable/satellite companies to go back now. They don't have to broadcast over the air. In fact, I bet they are looking for an excuse to stop all these "freeloaders" getting their TV with an antenna.

The notice from the court says that Alito did not participate in the decision to grant review. I don't know why he would recuse himself, but if he does that raises the possibility o fa 4-4 tie (which would uphold the Second circuit ruling without setting a national precedent - it would be as if they never took the case).

However, I do certainly believe the broadcast industry when they say they would stop broadcasting and go cable/online only.ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, etc. too addicted to rebroadcast fees from the cable/satellite companies to go back now. They don't have to broadcast over the air. In fact, I bet they are looking for an excuse to stop all these "freeloaders" getting their TV with an antenna.

The only thing stopping this is the darned gub'ment, with their obligations to utilize spectrum an' such. Whatevz. If they don't broadcast OTA then the government will just take back all that juicy spectrum. I can almost taste that country wide WIFI network ;-)

The disruption threatened by Aereo will produce changes that will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse.

QFT

"Cats and dogs living happily together? Pigs flying? People watching TV via the Internet? Such disruption, the world will never return from this chaotic state!"

The real disruption will be when the cable companies copy Aereo and stop paying retransmission fees. That is what the networks are really fighting. The cable companies will happily put Aereo out of business too.

Which would eventually just force affiliates to go cable-only, so they can charge the cable companies for content.

The networks are doing it wrong. Just ask Aereo to track viewership, give the numbers their advertisers and make even more money. The only one stealing from the networks is the networks. They need to learn to recognize opportunity.

This. I have not seen a better argument anywhere.

I get my TV OTA. It sucks, because I'm in an apartment, on the wrong side of the building from the broadcast stations I want to pick up, so I end up with an antenna sitting on the floor when I want to watch football, etc. The antenna, in turn, is connected to my HDHomerun, which then sends the signal over my home network to my laptop, and, if I want, from there to my TV. For basically everything else, I use Hulu/Netflix.

That being said... I GET THE STATIONS. They are FREE. Paid for by advertising. And the signal is changed from OTA at the antenna to IP by my HDHomerun.

If I get Aereo, what changes? Same stations. Same advertising. I'm watching on the same damn screen. It is technically still being received OTA by Aereo, and it is reaching my laptop via IP. All I'm doing is eliminating my HDHomerun, and moving the antenna from my floor, to Aereo's receiving station.

Because of the threat that the cable companies will stop paying retransmission fees.

I'll say that again, louder:

THE CABLE COMPANIES DO NOT CARE ABOUT AEREO. THEY WILL HAPPILY COLLECT AD REVENUE FROM AEREO CUSTOMERS. THEY ARE AFRAID THAT THE CABLE COMPANIES WILL START THEIR OWN AEREO SETUPS INSTEAD OF PAYING RETRANSMISSION FEES. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE SUING TO STOP.

The entertainment industry is not and never has been inventive in its business methods. The first thought, in all cases, is, "How do I protect the status quo." Aereo threatens the status quo in profound ways, and whether that's good for the end-user, it's potentially terrible for the cable networks. ABC is not in business to serve customers. In fact, you *arent* ABC's customer, not really. You're ABC's viewer.

ABC's customer is Time-Warner, or Comcast. And so ABC is rightly concerned that Aereo could destroy their own finances. The fallacy is believing that these companies have ever promoted policies that were more than incidentally good for the guy sitting at home.

When cable was invented, the networks went to war to maintain retransmission fee structures. Same for satellite. VCRs were a tremendous threat (until they became a tremendous opportunity). When TWC and NBC got into it last year, nobody with TWC Internet could watch NBC shows online *either*, because we aren't actually NBC customers and the company has no obligation to deliver content to any group of people.

What I want to know, is if there is a such thing as "momentum" going into a courtroom. Is it possible that the SCOTUS Justices will consider that Aereo has won all of the previous cases against it?

My understanding is that the SCOTUS doesn't necessarily have to "try" a case again, they can just look at one and see if there were any procedural or Constitutional issues with the previous decision that would cause them to overturn it. In football replay terms, it's the difference between "the ruling on the field is confirmed" and "the ruling on the field stands".

So really, the burden is on the broadcasters to demonstrate why the lower courts got the decision wrong. There's not "momentum", but... sorta?

What I want to know, is if there is a such thing as "momentum" going into a courtroom. Is it possible that the SCOTUS Justices will consider that Aereo has won all of the previous cases against it?

Aero's appellate lawyers should be nervous. One of the most important criteria the Supreme Court uses in selecting cases to hear is lower circuit conflict. If different circuits are reaching different answers on a question of interpretation a legal issue, the chances are pretty good the Supreme Court will accept a test case to clarify the matter. If there's no conflict or a legal issue has only arisen in a single circuit, the Court will generally not accept the case and will typically allow the circuit's ruling to stand. I haven't followed the Aero matter all too closely but if it's the case Aero litigation has pretty much been confined to the Second Circuit, then it's pretty unusual for the Supreme Court to take this case up. At least 4 justices had to agree that this case merited review so that means 4 of them aren't sure the case was decided correctly and merited further review. Those 4 may ultimately agree with the Second Circuit but the optimistic public stance Aero is taking is a bit of a front; its lawyers know most cases in their position would not have been accepted for review by the Supreme Court. The fact that it was indicate there's some doubt about the Second Circuit decision.

What I want to know, is if there is a such thing as "momentum" going into a courtroom. Is it possible that the SCOTUS Justices will consider that Aereo has won all of the previous cases against it?

At the lover levels of federal court, there is some momentum; however, once it gets to SCOTUS, it's a free-for-all. Sometimes you'll get the decision you want, but the basis/rationale will be completely different from the lower court's rationale (e.g. ACA decision).

The networks are doing it wrong. Just ask Aereo to track viewership, give the numbers their advertisers and make even more money. The only one stealing from the networks is the networks. They need to learn to recognize opportunity.

This. I have not seen a better argument anywhere.

I get my TV OTA. It sucks, because I'm in an apartment, on the wrong side of the building from the broadcast stations I want to pick up, so I end up with an antenna sitting on the floor when I want to watch football, etc. The antenna, in turn, is connected to my HDHomerun, which then sends the signal over my home network to my laptop, and, if I want, from there to my TV. For basically everything else, I use Hulu/Netflix.

That being said... I GET THE STATIONS. They are FREE. Paid for by advertising. And the signal is changed from OTA at the antenna to IP by my HDHomerun.

If I get Aereo, what changes? Same stations. Same advertising. I'm watching on the same damn screen. It is technically still being received OTA by Aereo, and it is reaching my laptop via IP. All I'm doing is eliminating my HDHomerun, and moving the antenna from my floor, to Aereo's receiving station.

WTF can't the broadcasters understand this?

It is exceedingly difficult to get a man to understand something when his livlihood depends on his not understanding it.

The networks are doing it wrong. Just ask Aereo to track viewership, give the numbers their advertisers and make even more money. The only one stealing from the networks is the networks. They need to learn to recognize opportunity.

This. I have not seen a better argument anywhere.

I get my TV OTA. It sucks, because I'm in an apartment, on the wrong side of the building from the broadcast stations I want to pick up, so I end up with an antenna sitting on the floor when I want to watch football, etc. The antenna, in turn, is connected to my HDHomerun, which then sends the signal over my home network to my laptop, and, if I want, from there to my TV. For basically everything else, I use Hulu/Netflix.

That being said... I GET THE STATIONS. They are FREE. Paid for by advertising. And the signal is changed from OTA at the antenna to IP by my HDHomerun.

If I get Aereo, what changes? Same stations. Same advertising. I'm watching on the same damn screen. It is technically still being received OTA by Aereo, and it is reaching my laptop via IP. All I'm doing is eliminating my HDHomerun, and moving the antenna from my floor, to Aereo's receiving station.

WTF can't the broadcasters understand this?

They understand it perfectly. They've decided tho try to get the law changed to protect their fiefdoms instead of competing in the market. Why make improve prices or service when you can get competition banned?

What I want to know, is if there is a such thing as "momentum" going into a courtroom. Is it possible that the SCOTUS Justices will consider that Aereo has won all of the previous cases against it?

Aero's appellate lawyers should be nervous. One of the most important criteria the Supreme Court uses in selecting cases to hear is lower circuit conflict. If different circuits are reaching different answers on a question of interpretation a legal issue, the chances are pretty good the Supreme Court will accept a test case to clarify the matter. If there's no conflict or a legal issue has only arisen in a single circuit, the Court will generally not accept the case and will typically allow the circuit's ruling to stand. I haven't followed the Aero matter all too closely but if it's the case Aero litigation has pretty much been confined to the Second Circuit, then it's pretty unusual for the Supreme Court to take this case up. At least 4 justices had to agree that this case merited review so that means 4 of them aren't sure the case was decided correctly and merited further review. Those 4 may ultimately agree with the Second Circuit but the optimistic public stance Aero is taking is a bit of a front; its lawyers know most cases in their position would not have been accepted for review by the Supreme Court. The fact that it was indicate there's some doubt about the Second Circuit decision.

Normally the Supreme Court taking on a case with no circuit split is a red flag, but here it may be less so because you have the business models of nationwide entities being dictated by a single circuit's decision. Forcing them to continue litigating across the country just to make it back to this point would be wasteful, and I can see justices that support the Cablevision test voting to accept the case just in the name of getting it over with and having certainty.

The disruption threatened by Aereo will produce changes that will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse.

QFT

"Cats and dogs living happily together? Pigs flying? People watching TV via the Internet? Such disruption, the world will never return from this chaotic state!"

The real disruption will be when the cable companies copy Aereo and stop paying retransmission fees. That is what the networks are really fighting. The cable companies will happily put Aereo out of business too.

How are the cable companies going to put Aereo out of business by copying them?I don't see how that happens unless they duplicate Aereo's service for a significant discount on Aereo's prices, like maybe $5/month. And well... cable company... $5/month.... yeah right.

The networks are doing it wrong. Just ask Aereo to track viewership, give the numbers their advertisers and make even more money. The only one stealing from the networks is the networks. They need to learn to recognize opportunity.

This. I have not seen a better argument anywhere.

I get my TV OTA. It sucks, because I'm in an apartment, on the wrong side of the building from the broadcast stations I want to pick up, so I end up with an antenna sitting on the floor when I want to watch football, etc. The antenna, in turn, is connected to my HDHomerun, which then sends the signal over my home network to my laptop, and, if I want, from there to my TV. For basically everything else, I use Hulu/Netflix.

That being said... I GET THE STATIONS. They are FREE. Paid for by advertising. And the signal is changed from OTA at the antenna to IP by my HDHomerun.

If I get Aereo, what changes? Same stations. Same advertising. I'm watching on the same damn screen. It is technically still being received OTA by Aereo, and it is reaching my laptop via IP. All I'm doing is eliminating my HDHomerun, and moving the antenna from my floor, to Aereo's receiving station.

WTF can't the broadcasters understand this?

It's not a matter of understanding it, it's a matter of controlling it.

The decision below has far-reaching adverse consequences for the broadcast television industry, making the need for this Court’s review urgent and acute. The decision already is having a transformative effect on the industry. Industry participants will not and cannot afford to wait for something of this magnitude to percolate before responding to new business realities. And once Aereo’s technology is entrenched and the industry has restructured itself in response, a ruling by this Court in Petitioners’ favor will come too late. The disruption threatened by Aereo will produce changes that will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse.

This was seriously written in the petition?

The SCOTUS is supposed to rule on the law, not the affect it will have on an industry's bottom line. But, alas, everyone loves an activist court.

I assume this was written by the PETITIONER (i.e. the TV companies) in their petition for cert with SCOTUS. Aereo probably filed an equally one-sided brief in their response to the petition. SCOTUS hasn't said anything beyond "We grant cert and want to hear this case"...everything else is either from the two parties or the lower courts.

The disruption threatened by Aereo will produce changes that will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse.

QFT

"Cats and dogs living happily together? Pigs flying? People watching TV via the Internet? Such disruption, the world will never return from this chaotic state!"

The real disruption will be when the cable companies copy Aereo and stop paying retransmission fees. That is what the networks are really fighting. The cable companies will happily put Aereo out of business too.

How are the cable companies going to put Aereo out of business by copying them?I don't see how that happens unless they duplicate Aereo's service for a significant discount on Aereo's prices, like maybe $5/month. And well... cable company... $5/month.... yeah right.

In the networks' nightmare scenario, it goes like this.

Step 1. Supreme Court rules that Aereo's thousands-of-tiny-antennas plan is legal.Step 2. Cable companies, which currently have to pay big bucks to the networks for the right to carry their OTA stations, build antenna arrays to carry the feed to their subscribers instead.Step 3. Networks, facing the loss of all retransmission fees, cut off OTA broadcasts instead. Step 4. Aereo now has no OTA feed to carry to its subscribers, and goes out of business. Step 5. Anybody who wants to watch network TV outside of piddly local channels has to buy cable.

I think the more likely scenario is that around step 2, the media conglomerates that own ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox remind the cable companies that they own a lot of cable channels too, and can pull them from anybody who starts building antenna arrays. Problem solved.

The fact that they're using thousands of tiny antennas instead of, say the 5 they actually need, is ridiculous. Such a waste, necessitated by stupid and outdated laws.

Also...launch in Indianapolis already, Aereo! I can't get any broadcast signal where I live, and I'll be damned if comcast gets another cent from me.

Yes, but this technicality is (hopefully) enough to protect them from an unreasonable restriction.

If they win, then the real question is, who will win the battle to change the law? Will they pass a law outlawing their method of circumvention, or will they pass a law saying the antennae are not needed to have a remote DVR?

Because leaving it as is, with otherwise unnecessary hardware to bypass the restriction, is just dumb.

The decision below has far-reaching adverse consequences for the broadcast television industry, making the need for this Court’s review urgent and acute. The decision already is having a transformative effect on the industry. Industry participants will not and cannot afford to wait for something of this magnitude to percolate before responding to new business realities. And once Aereo’s technology is entrenched and the industry has restructured itself in response, a ruling by this Court in Petitioners’ favor will come too late. The disruption threatened by Aereo will produce changes that will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse.

This was seriously written in the petition?

The SCOTUS is supposed to rule on the law, not the affect it will have on an industry's bottom line. But, alas, everyone loves an activist court.

Please legislate my business model!

The scary thing is, this argument works more often than not. Big businesses get a lot of protection against disruptive competitors, especially in the media industry.

The networks are doing it wrong. Just ask Aereo to track viewership, give the numbers their advertisers and make even more money. The only one stealing from the networks is the networks. They need to learn to recognize opportunity.

In some areas it sounds like the networks get paid by the cable TV providers. So, they (or the cable companies) may be concerned about these types of services eating into their bottom line.

The disruption threatened by Aereo will produce changes that will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse.

QFT

"Cats and dogs living happily together? Pigs flying? People watching TV via the Internet? Such disruption, the world will never return from this chaotic state!"

The real disruption will be when the cable companies copy Aereo and stop paying retransmission fees. That is what the networks are really fighting. The cable companies will happily put Aereo out of business too.

How are the cable companies going to put Aereo out of business by copying them?I don't see how that happens unless they duplicate Aereo's service for a significant discount on Aereo's prices, like maybe $5/month. And well... cable company... $5/month.... yeah right.

It goes like this.

Step 1. Supreme Court rules that Aereo's thousands-of-tiny-antennas plan is legal.Step 2. Cable companies, which currently have to pay big bucks to the networks for the right to carry their OTA stations, build antenna arrays to carry the feed to their subscribers instead.Step 3. Networks, facing the loss of all retransmission fees, cut off OTA broadcasts instead. Step 4. Aereo now has no OTA feed to carry to its subscribers, and goes out of business. Step 5. Anybody who wants to watch network TV outside of piddly local channels has to buy cable.

How are the cable companies going to put Aereo out of business by copying them?I don't see how that happens unless they duplicate Aereo's service for a significant discount on Aereo's prices, like maybe $5/month. And well... cable company... $5/month.... yeah right.

Because the cable companies don't even need to charge for it, and you have cable internet already. Cable companies save a LOT of money by dodging the retransmission fees, which makes duplicating Aereo's infrastructure worth it. So their customers continue to receive tv shows like they always did, with the added option of streaming it.

Then the cable companies could decide if they want to have an additional fee for mobile folks (for streaming when not on their network). That'd be all Aereo had left to fight over.

The disruption threatened by Aereo will produce changes that will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse.

QFT

"Cats and dogs living happily together? Pigs flying? People watching TV via the Internet? Such disruption, the world will never return from this chaotic state!"

The real disruption will be when the cable companies copy Aereo and stop paying retransmission fees. That is what the networks are really fighting. The cable companies will happily put Aereo out of business too.

How are the cable companies going to put Aereo out of business by copying them?I don't see how that happens unless they duplicate Aereo's service for a significant discount on Aereo's prices, like maybe $5/month. And well... cable company... $5/month.... yeah right.

It goes like this.

Step 1. Supreme Court rules that Aereo's thousands-of-tiny-antennas plan is legal.Step 2. Cable companies, which currently have to pay big bucks to the networks for the right to carry their OTA stations, build antenna arrays to carry the feed to their subscribers instead.Step 3. Networks, facing the loss of all retransmission fees, cut off OTA broadcasts instead. Step 4. Aereo now has no OTA feed to carry to its subscribers, and goes out of business. Step 5. Anybody who wants to watch network TV outside of piddly local channels has to buy cable.

Woah cowboy. That's a LOT of conjecture. Fun logic, but I don't see it coming together in this way and not nearly so neatly. OTA networks still make plenty of money from ads, they aren't walking away from that, it's just BS on their part. And if they do, trust me there will be other entities interested in that spectrum to make new networks